Mike Stump schrieb:
On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Again: A test case that fails because it incorrectly assumes int is 32 bits
wide.
Ok to apply?
I'd think the testcase is more naturally:
return ~((uint32_t) (arg > -3));
That not equivalent to the proposed patch: I
On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Again: A test case that fails because it incorrectly assumes int is 32 bits
> wide.
>
> Ok to apply?
I'd think the testcase is more naturally:
> return ~((uint32_t) (arg > -3));
Does that work for you? Anyone want to weigh in on which ver
Again: A test case that fails because it incorrectly assumes int is 32 bits
wide.
Ok to apply?
* gcc.c-torture/execute/20120111-1.c: Fix wrong int = int32_t
assumption.
Index: gcc.c-torture/execute/20120111-1.c
==
